User talk:Dmcq/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Dmcq. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Userboxes Barnstar of Diligence Awarded toDmcq for working to assist someone not understanding the tesseract.

I sent a warning. If you persist in your behavior you will be banned temporarily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by130.104.61.1 (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This from a person who stick in stuff into the appropriate article, couldn't be bothered with citations, and stick a table where there is just a summary of the main topic about it and a pointer to the main article about it.Dmcq (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The third source does indeed. It explains how the new right (a far right as clarified in the book) was shaped and continues to exist. One of the manifestations is Conservapedia. As for the second, I realized that my interpretation of the source was a little WP:ORish, the new source explicitly states that Conservapedia is an example of right-wing ideology (with a specific example being its treatment of Barack Obama). Soxwon (talk) 10:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops! We don't want to bypass the talk page. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I feel you are acting in bad faith, and so have opened this. 86.** IP (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

What on earth is this? I really don't understand. Do you mean FTN? Do you include me? Andy the Grump? What POV do you think we are pushing? Itsmejudith (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes I most certainly do. Did you not get that from what I wrote at that noticeboard atWikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Global_warming_conspiracy_theory where I clearly stated I thought what kind of POV you pushed? Well I'll quote "So overall I would ask editors here to stop looking at articles from just the perspective of whether they promote scientific truth or not. That blinds to a lot of other things. Just looking at 'climate change denial', oh that's about a POV in a debate. It isn't even part of the debate." Wikipedia is not a vehicle to push the TRUTH like Conservapedia, a battle van to destroy all erroneous thought and articles are viewed throuhgh the lens of conforming to the light. Dmcq (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha. Alternatively, the ANYTHINGGOES cabal has forced the VERIFIABILITY cabal into alliance with the TRUTH cabale. Alternatively, there are no cabals. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I think your cosy little coterie has gone badly astray. That little contribution does not exactly raise my expectations. Dmcq (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I have a cosy coterie? In my dreams. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding in the reference desk thread.

The other day I'd found these (http://www.norgrove.me.uk/permanent_way_notes.htm) and was trying to understand them , hence my questions in the reference desk thread.

What I was trying to was work out how to map a point (x,z) in Catersian space (i.e points relative to a straight line track) to an equivalent point on a curve with a defined radius r, being an arc defined by chord AB.

In terms of possible transformations of straight to curve, I'm not yet understanding it all fully.

What I'd like to have is some functions as follows :

i) 'slide' , that is a translation P(x,z) -> P'(x',z), where P' is on a curve defined by a chord AB. (Note the z value doesn't change.)

ii)'bend' , translates a pint P(x,z) on chord AB to P'(x',z'), where P' is on the arc defined by AB. Distances parrallel to AB (before the transformation) get scaled, whereas distances perpendicular to AB are rotated.

iii)'curve', translates a point P(x,z)->P'(x',z'), where P' is on the arc defined by AB. Distances parallel to AB (before the transformation) become 'arc lengths' w.r.t arc AB. Distances perpendicular to AB(before the transformation) are not preserved.

As you claim an interest in visualisation of math concepts, perhaps you are able to diagram these so that I can see where I'm consistently failing to get an algorithimically workable solution to each. The reference desk thread helps partially with case ii) . Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

There's quite a bit there. Before I look further - have you tried talking on some railway enthusiast notice board about this? I'd have thought they might have somebody who likes to deal with the actual way railways actually do the business by approximating with curves rather than idealizing like I was talking about. Dmcq (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I did ask about this on such forums but didn't get much of a response :( - I also made a second diagram here -

File:TrackCurve Slide and Bend.svg to try and show what I mean by a 'bend' and a 'slide'. A 'curve' operation looks like it would be rather complex :( ) . Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I'm surprised you didn't find anyone. I'm off dancing now but I'll try and look tomorrow.Dmcq (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

After spending the entire AfD accusing me and everyone else who disagree with you of bad faith and a conspiracy, don't you dare edit my comments, and add words I never wrote to them. 86.** IP(talk) 18:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Not my problem now. Somebody else has moved their stuff as well for the same good and sound reason that I did it I would guess. Dmcq (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

86.** IP (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I suppose in slashdot terms I should decrement my karma if I get one of these whatever the reasoning behind it.Dmcq (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi D. In light of this policy and user request, please consider reverting edit here NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Done though I think it is a bad idea. I had a reply there before but that was within his hide. Now the hide has gone I've removed it in the interest of trying to stop that edit war at the top that broke out when he stuck in another similar statement at the top. Dmcq (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and FYI (A) I never for a moment doubted your good intentions, and (B) you may well be correct that moving the comment would be beneficial in the abstract. But IMO that is not our call, and I appreciate your prompt response. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

why you said exponent in denormalized form is -126 ?? if you see later in examples for denormalized numbers is written actual exponent -127 like it should be. You have to write that actual exponent is -127 otherwise it is misleading.

The significand is a fraction and normally there is a hidden 1 before it. For denormalised numbers the hidden part is zero. There is no scaling needed to add a denormalized number to a number with 1 in the exponent field.Dmcq (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The smallest normalised number is 1.0 x 2^-126, the largest denormalised number is 0.11111111111... x 2^-126 and the smallest denormalised number is 0.00000000 00000000 0000001 x 2^-126

ok so the exponent 0 used for subnormalized numbers has no direct number meaning. They are just the numbers between 0 and 2^-126(strict)

which represents an exponent of –126

this phrase is misleading, exponent has no number meaning as for NaN. An exponent=0 means that, by assumption of the standard, they are the numbers that fill the gap for underflow operations (that is an implicit -126 exponent of course)
But previously the article talks about bias and exponent, so someone thinks this is valid also for subnormalized numbers, but is not. May be adding "an implicit exponent..." would be better. Or state explicitely that bias is to be calculated only for 0<e<255 (i.e has a number meaning)

  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.25.136.252 (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC) 

Anyway, I don't want to be polemic, I just would like to provide feedback and let you know that for someone studying this, as I am, it's not very clear. — Precedingunsigned comment added by 151.25.136.252 (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The exponent says how much the bits of the significand need to be shifted to get floating point numbers compatible with each other. Dmcq (talk) 01:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding some of your current edits at Scientific opinion on climate change: I don't object (well, not much) to pushing some of the quoted material into a footnote. But I do find the cite/citation |quote= parameter troubling, and I wonder if could talk you into an alternate format. E.g., instead doing something like:

  <ref> {{cite ... |quote="Human activity...."}}.</ref>

do

  <ref> {{cite ... }}. "Human activity...." </ref>

Which is to say, simply pulling the quote out of the citation template, as it really is not part of the citation's bibliographic details, and only jams up the processing. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay will do. Why on earth did they stick in the parameter if it causes problems though? Dmcq (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Because all of the citation stuff is a big tar pit? I have no idea, and am reluctant to ask.

Thanks. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Late addition: Because it is metadata, and can be collected automatically by bots or scrapers, to be used for various purposes. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

"only jams up the processing"??? Are you using tools here - or are you talking about your personal preference? If you do not like the way that cite/citation formats the resulting citation - then the ideal thing to do is to change the citation template (or fork it), so that it formats the citations to the preferences. Putting them outside the citation template, will for "all eternity" (until someone changes it :-) ) prevent changes in citation templates to have an effect. Ie. You lose something - while gaining little. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see this…Maury Markowitz (talk)

Answered on the talk page. Dmcq (talk)

User:NewsAndEventsGuy seems to be editorialising the article in a very POV-pushing way, adding synthesis like "These unproven conspiracy allegations have been harshly criticized" (under the disguise of reorganising the sections). Since you commented in the thread already, I'd like to ask you for a third opinion; I don't want to get into an edit war with NewsAndEventsGuy but I don't think he understands how NPOV works on articles about points of view. PT 17:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I've already got that on my watchlist and will be coming round to looking at it. I would put things like this onto a noticeboard or the talk page because sticking requests like this onto user (added 'user', silly to miss that out) talk pages can constitute wp:canvassing which can lead to mobbing of articles by linked groups of people, anyway those places are seen by more people. Dmcq (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, my defence against any accusations of canvassing is that a) you'd already posted in the talk thread, and b) I don't actually know your position on the issue, nor care, I just want to be sure someone else besides me is watching what's happening so that I don't lose my temper and start edit-warring (I don't have quite as much self-control as I'd like). Had you not posted in the talk thread I'd have gone to WP:3O, but 3O isn't supposed to be used when there are already three parties present (or so, at least, I understand it). PT 17:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Not accusing of anything, just warning it can be a problem. We've had a group of people come along and started doing silly things recently and it definitely constituted canvassing with the way they talked amongst themselves first and then descended on things. Dmcq (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Like D said, "I would put things like this onto a noticeboard or the talk page" also. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I have decided to do no more work on the climate change/global warming articles. There's been too much silliness and 'bold' edits lately by people who are long term editors, it's bad enough coping with ip vandals and I find what's happening now just too annoying. It wastes too much of my time which could be more productively spent elsewhere.Dmcq (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, don't go away! ("Mad" or not.) Yeah, it gets a bit rough at times, but if it starts getting to be too much just step back and take a breather. Don't let the annoyance become self-exciting (like in a motor). ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Were you refering to me, D? If I can be so bold, I notice sometimes you reply in substance to what I call "litterbugs". They show up in talk page, take two seconds to say some critical remark, and then..... you engage them, at great expense of energy. Just like its two seconds to toss your burger bag out the window, but a ton of work to clean up the highway. If you need to conserve, just flip them back a question. Or ignore them. You can also pick and choose your battles by watching the traffic stats. A page with under 100 hits per day isn't all that big a deal to get worked up about, IMO. That will save you some time & energy to deal with the likes of.... whatever longtime editor(s) are getting you down! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

No I wasn't referring to you. As to the litterbugs I do try and assume good faith just that bit longer and try to educate them, that I take as being part of the normal running of Wikipedia and if the occasional one goes away with something I'm happy. The 100 hits a day doesn't worry me, it depends who does the reading. For instance sprung floor has about the same readership but has probably had more effect in the real world than exponentiationwhich has ten to twenty times the readership. I'm basically lazy and fighting other editors isn't my idea of fun, there's lots of articles where I see a far higher benefit/effort ratio so yes I am off. Dmcq (talk) 10:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you've been a little bit sideways on some aspects of this, sort of like when a wrestler takes a fall on his face instead of on his shoulder. Like this stuff Judith was doing – I wouldn't say she was fighting you (or anyone else), just going a little wild. I think you took it harder ("on the chin"?) than necessary, but part of working together is learning how to minimize the bumps. (She did back off.) And for all that this article may not get so many visits, it is part of a much more significant issue, where we need all the sensible editors available. ~J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

I would like to inform you that the NPOV discussion about the List of oldest universities in continuous operation, to which you participated, was reopened on the NPOVN.

The current discussion is ongoing on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#The List of oldest universities in continuous operation (again).

Regards,
--Omar-Toons (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I thought it was more a point of view topic anyway so I think I'll pass. They seemed to think this was a subject of scholarly debate whereas I think it's something at the level of the Guinness Book of Records at best. Sorry alma mater if you're stuck in with a bunch of madrasahs. Dmcq (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems silly that the newest content on the dissc. forum is at the bottem where it is hardest to see, allowing the old content to become stagnant taking up valuable real estate at the beginning of the dissc. page.

108.32.119.145 (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It means someone coming along can read the talk page in something near chronological order. The tab 'New section' just after 'Edit' will set up a new section at the end. You get used to it. With an ordinary article you can put later things first because you set up the context and then you might want to give the current state, but for a talk page in reverse chronological order you might not see what was being talked about until after the reply.Dmcq (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your somewhat hasty deletion of the graph: as evident in the caption, the orange curve is the functional sqrt, and the black one the functional sqrt thereof, namely the quarter root. A few iterates are also included, below the sine curve, obviously, to guide the eye, and help the viewer zoom upwards to the tent map limit". Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that but when I had a look again I noticed it was a copyright violation, it just took the source directly so I'll have to remove it anyway. Dmcq (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

oops 2 it has got explicit permission to copy the source site. Dmcq (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that your Feb. 2010 version was better. The new versions add more technical details but are less clear (at least to non-professionals). What do you think? — Precedingunsigned comment added by Shuroo (talk •contribs) 10:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Well actually they've described what it actually was whereas I was more describing a later version which requires much less work to generate the tables and yet can give exact results always. The trick is to find the actual critical values which give problems rather than to search around. I think I'll leave it though I agree there's too much detail.Dmcq (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I have made a small change that presents a better description in the spirit of Muller's book. Shuroo —Preceding undated comment added 11:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC).

Sorry man, just thought it was a simple mistake. Thought [ should've been (. DaHuzyBru (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a fairly common gotcha for people who don't know about it. Dmcq (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. DaHuzyBru (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Dmcq. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10